Remix.run Logo
testing22321 11 hours ago

This is a single 10sec exposure in the Aussie outback on old consumer gear ( Sony a7iii )

https://www.instagram.com/p/CersLuLBfCz

You don’t need multiples, and you don’t need an overly long exposure.

genewitch 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It sounds like you know what you're talking about until one realizes the earth is spinning. Wide field photos can be shot up to thirty seconds depending on the back and lens.

Anything more zoomy than 50mm uncropped you're getting streaks in < dozen seconds. There's a rule of thumb but I don't remember it.

Best course of action is to take a video and let a stacking program deal with it, especially if you use a real telescope.

Also the Sony a7r have like "150,000 ISO " and iirc cost like $3500 with a kit lens. That's a bit above consumer, but I may have mixed up models.

testing22321 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

My camera is not an a7r. I paid $1200 for it used.

The exposure was 10 seconds, so by your own explanation, the spinning of the earth is not a problem ( as you can clearly see in the photo I linked )

teamonkey 2 hours ago | parent [-]

An astronomy photo can commonly require hours or even tens of hours of exposure time.

joshvm 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Tens of seconds is about right. It's something like 500/f(mm) in seconds, but you get a feel for what will blur and what won't. Here's an example I shot with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 @ 20s: https://www.instagram.com/p/C-mU6iIp0re/?igsh=cm16bWx1cGp3OG...